X-Ways MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

testenv_create

Set up a disposable synthetic environment for testing evidence analysis across Windows, Linux, macOS, or generic platforms.

Instructions

Create a synthetic disposable fixture environment for windows/linux/macos/generic evidence.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "testenv_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	No	CASE-001
`evidence_os`	No	windows
`root`	No	test-envs
`cache`	No	truncated
`force`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It states 'create' and 'disposable' but doesn't clarify what exactly is created (e.g., files, directories), permissions required, or whether cleanup is automatic.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could include a bit more detail without losing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and no information about what the output schema contains, the description is incomplete. A creation tool should mention return values (e.g., environment ID) and the lifecycle.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds only a hint about 'evidence_os' (windows/linux/macos/generic). It does not explain the other parameters: name, root, cache, force. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema parameter descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'synthetic disposable fixture environment' for multiple OS types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like testenv_destroy or testenv_list, which have different actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like testenv_build or testenv_run. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.